Is Iran Nearing a Bomb?
That Iran is building a secret underground facility near the holy city of Qom, under custody of the Revolutionary Guard – too small to be a production center for nuclear fuel, but just right for the enrichment of uranium to weapons grade – is grounds for concern, but not panic.
Heretofore, all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, even the enrichment plant at Natanz – kept secret before exiles blew the whistle in 2002 – have been consistent with a peaceful nuclear program.
Iran has also been on solid ground in claiming that, as signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, she has a right to enrich uranium and operate nuclear plants, as long as she complies with treaty obligations.
Under the Safeguard Agreement to the NPT, these include notification, six months before a nuclear facility goes operational.
According to U.S. officials, construction of this site began in 2006 and is only months from completion. And Tehran did not report it to the International Atomic Energy Agency until a week ago, when they were tipped the Americans were onto it and about to go public.
Iran’s explanation: This facility is benign, a backup to Natanz, to enable Iran to continue enriching uranium to fuel grade, should America or Israel bomb Natanz. It is a hedge against attack. And contrary to what Barack Obama implies, the facility is designed to enrich uranium only to the 5 percent needed for nuclear fuel, not the 90 percent needed for nuclear weapons.
Still, the burden of proof is now upon Tehran.
President Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei must convince IAEA inspectors this small, secret facility that can house only 3,000 centrifuges has the same purpose as Natanz, which can house 58,000. Or they will be exposed as liars – to the West, to the Russians who have served as their defense counsel, and to their own people.
For while Iranians are near unanimous in backing their national right to peaceful nuclear power, they do not all want nuclear weapons. And the ayatollah has declared, ex cathedra, that Iran is not seeking them, and possession or use of such weapons is immoral and contrary to the teachings of Islam.
If Obama is right that the secret facility is “inconsistent with a peaceful program,” but compatible with a weapons program, Ayatollah Khamenei has a credibility problem the size of Andrei Gromyko’s, when he assured President Kennedy there were no Soviet missiles in Cuba. And President Kennedy had the photos in his desk.
Diplomats have been called honest men sent abroad to lie for their country. But ayatollahs, as holy men, are not supposed to be descending to diplomatic duplicity.
Obama’s dramatic announcement represents a coup for U.S. intelligence, but it also raises questions.
Reportedly, we have known of this Qom facility “for several years.” Yet, in late 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) said that U.S. agencies had “moderate confidence” that Iran had ended any nuclear weapons program in 2003.
In August, Walter Pincus, in a Washington Post story – “Iran Years From Fuel for Bomb, Report Says” – wrote, “Despite Iran’s progress since 2007 toward producing enriched uranium, the State Department intelligence analysts continue to think that Tehran will not be able to produce weapons-grade material before 2013.”
This was the judgment of the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, based on “Iran’s technical capability.”
Query: If State’s top intelligence analysts, this year, did not think Iran could enrich to weapons grade until 2013, had they been kept in the dark about the secret facility near Qom?
Two weeks ago, in a Web exclusive, Mark Hosenball wrote, “The U.S. intelligence community is reporting to the White House that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons development program, two counter-proliferation officials tell Newsweek.”
The officials told the White House the conclusion of the 2007 NIE – i.e., Iran had halted its weapons program in 2003 – stood.
Were these two counter-proliferation officials also out of the loop on the secret site? Or did they know of it, but fail to share the sense of alarm and urgency President Obama showed last week?
Despite last week’s revelation, the Obama policy of talking to Tehran makes sense. Whatever the ayatollah’s intentions, IAEA inspectors have his lone ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz under observation. To enrich it to weapons grade, it must be moved.
America’s twin goals here are correct, compatible, and by no means unattainable: no nukes in Iran, no war with Iran.
Bombing would unite that divided country behind a regime whose repressed people detest far more than we, as they have to live under it. Patience and perseverance, as in the Cold War, may be rewarded with the disintegration of a state that is today divided against itself.
We outlasted the Red czars. We will outlast the ayatollahs.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Read more by Patrick J. Buchanan
- Who Wants War With Iran? – February 6th, 2012
- He Who Defends Everything Defends Nothing – February 2nd, 2012
- Who Wants War With Iran? – January 19th, 2012
- Our Innocents Abroad? – January 2nd, 2012
- Make Congress Vote on War on Iran – December 22nd, 2011





Geo1671
September 29th, 2009 at 11:14 am
a secret underground facility … under custody of the Revolutionary Guard ….. right for the enrichment of uranium to weapons grade – is grounds for concern, …..Still, the burden of proof is now upon Tehran
Nonsense Pat,just like Saddam had to prove he had none,USA had already made it's mind to invade.Problem with Pat,is he is a Politician and good at trade–lying!
To him,while the west was funding and sending material ,since the 50's for Israel nukedevelopment–no problem . Just a few years ago, Germany GAVE israel several nuke carrying submarines–No problem Patrick? :^/
Peacegeek
September 29th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Wrong. Pat is right. The burden of proof is on Tehran. They must now permit IAEA inspections which they say they will agree to allow. There is no evidence that the Obama wants outright war with Iran or that he would be backed by the people who voted for him if he did. Pat is right — our two objectives: no nukes for Iran and no war with Iran are not incompatible — they are inseparable. If we went to war with Iran they would nuke up immediately while attacking US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, Central Asia and Israel. In this instance war is a threat that Iran is taking lightly — that is why she is cooperating. Her fears are a rogue attack from Israel.
Henry_Clemens
September 29th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
P.B. asks; "Is Iran Nearing a Bomb?" From what I've read, I rather doubt. But what if they are? Is that such a bad thing? Perhaps, deploying a few nukes is now the only way any nation can guarantee that they will never be invaded by the United States of Evil Empire. Maybe, it is the only way they can prevent America's Ruling Establishment (a cabal of political-military-banking-corporate liars, thieves and murderers) from launching yet another unjustified and immoral war of naked aggression. God made little nations and God made big nations, but it was Edward Teller and nuclear technology that made them all equal.
Namlas
September 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
We will outlast the Ayatollahs? Hahahahaha. I love a good laugh in the morning. A recent University of MD survey stated that 80% of 1001 people support the Iranian government. Only a very small, yet vocal minority are against the Ayatollahs.
Terrible
September 29th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
As a matter of fact NO they are not. Pat Buchanan is a flilthy America hating war-mongering POS that has no place being a so called pundit. His attempt to drum up another illegal war based on complete lies is disgusting and sickening!
Michaelkenny
September 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
The interesting detail is the claim that Iran reported the facility to the IAEA at this particular moment because they knew Obama was going to go public. How come the government of Iran, with which the US is in confrontation, is aware of what the President of the US is about to do before he does it? Obviously, the Iranians have friends in the right places!
Namlas
September 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Yes, they have the Mahdi. He tells the ayatollah things.
humanist_xy
September 29th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Bombs are bad, solving the political problems in a civilized way and without resorting to bombs is good
This post is bad, pretending he loves flowers but in a slick way he advocates bombs !
It Gets the Frum Seal of Approval « LewRockwell.com Blog
September 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
[...] a friend on Capitol Hill: Did you see Buchanan’s disgusting column today? Going on about Iran’s “secret nuclear plants.” Talk about conceding the main point. [...]
boomer166
September 30th, 2009 at 1:25 am
It never ceases to amaze me at the unbridled arrogance americans have, when they accuse other nations of wrongdoing. I suppose they should really be experts at it, though, being consummate evildoers of the first magnitude.
Last time I checked, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused.
We can see how well that turned out in Iraq, with the monstrous lies spewing from american mouths, accusing Iraq having WMD.
Didn't even get a "Sorry about that", out of that whoring administration.
RickR30
September 29th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I don't know about Pat. As of late his writings are ever so slightly approximating the official line. Why is there no burden on Israel, their hundreds of bombs, their refusal to sign treatises, their refusal to submit to inspections, their refusal to acknowledge or explain all this? Who is in greater danger of missile attack- Israel or Iran? If Israel has some type of beyond-divine right to defend "herself," does this right not extend to Iran (not that they are building any nuclear weapons). What Iran does is no concern of the US. That's why we have the IAEA. Ultimately, let's not get caught up in silly diversions. Let's focus on what the thiefs in Congress are up to.
RickR30
September 30th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Nicely put. The non-existence of the slightest sense of self-criticism on the part of Americans is downright inhuman. They tolerate their administrations spreading death and destruction around the world, not to mention probably within America itself- and yet somehow they cannot conceive of a world without some one (foreign) individual characterized as "evil" itself by the intelligentsia.